NATO: A Sick Dinosaur Overdue for Extinction

“Alliance. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other’s pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.” –Ambrose Bierce

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by SARTRE back in February 2002, and 21WIRE’s editorial team agrees with the author when he told us: “Even more true today from when this article was written.” NATO has long outlived its claimed original purpose, but the real danger going forward is what it might be replaced by – a new European Army.

Congratulations President Bush! You accomplished in a mere two years what Khruschev or Brezhnev couldn’t during the entire cold war. Driving a wedge in the alliance may seem dangerous to most observers, but for once, you did the right thing.

The stated mission of NATO has long passed into history, and its demise and dissolution is one of the few bright spots in the continuing war against the NWO. Contrary to the whining of the familiar fifth column suspects – Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney and David Horowitz – real Americas are not served by jingoism.

When France, Germany and Belgium vetoed a U.S. request to provide military assistance to Turkey, NATO received a diagnosis that the patient has recovered its lucidity and has directed their release from the asylum.

Perle’segotism knew no limits. When he stated that: “France is no longer the ally it once was . . . I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world”, you hear the quintessential proponent of the “Hyperpower” vision for the United States. The superpower status of military projection has not brought the promised Pax Americana.

Now we have an open break that clearly states that not everyone endorses that specter of global governance.

NATO: ‘Spreading freedom and democracy.’

Recent expansion of NATO to add several Eastern European countries has more to do with calling the red, white and blue welcome wagon of foreign aid, than real security. It should be evident that EU countries are not willing to extend a neocolonialism of occupation, much less to accept it, any longer on their own soil. Its time to bring the troops back home, the Berlin wall came down, and Germans don’t need to be hosting an occupying army. Or does the subtle objective of the War Party, seek to prevent the reassertion of any nationalism or union on the continent that could challenge the imperial forces of the beneficent U.S. empire?

Apprehension that remnants of the East German Stasi Secret Police, will resurrect fears of the past, ignores the strong non-intervention attitude that has steadily grown since the end of WWII. The brutal lessons of total destruction have been internalized by most Europeans, while many Americans float through a cloud of self denial that they are immune to the repercussions of their pompous foreign interventionism.

Anglo-American Dominance

NATO is the invention of the United States and the British. The European Union countries fully appreciate the risks of accepting a dollar dominated economy and a Bush-Blair-Sharon [and now Netanyahu] foreign policy. The prevailing memory of Western Europe recalls the history on the Middle East and the reasons why that eternal conflict persists. Turkey’s response, invoking NATO’s Article IV, which says “parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened”, will not preserve an alliance that is on life support. Pulling the plug will not harm the patient, but may well restore its health.

Internationalists are warmongers, and alliances foster belligerency. Any similarity in the ostensive failed assassination attempt on George HW Bush with the successful slaying of Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Protective alliances triggered mobilization that lead to the great carnage known as WW I. And who can forget the justification to reign in a non repentant Germany was that treaty with Poland? Just ask a Pole how well they did under the victors of WW II . . .

Before the first gun has fired – the war to expand Greater Israel – this psychotic policy has produced causalities. Note the fall out that comes when fighting in the desert: “German diplomats are well aware that an American plan for a robust UN inspection system was floated last year and dropped, having drawn little international enthusiasm. A European reworking of that plan, drawn up without the consultation of the United States, would be seen only as an affront by Washington.”

The prospect of Russia nabbing victory using detente when the Soviets lost the cold war bodes the formation of a New Europasiation. While trade and fair commerce between nations is usually beneficial, the prospects of swapping one distant chum for a former inimical neighbor, can have its own risks. From the report, New Partnerships after the Cold War Era by Elif Hatun Kilicbeyli:

“With the concept of the regional cooperation, the importance of the counter dependency, the contribution to the economic integration and the integration to world economy are meant. The economic relations between Russia and the EU improves within the framework of the planned program.”

If the breakdown in NATO is destined to avail an opportunity to curtail the Yankee Hyper-power, the alternative need not be the formation of another suspect alliance. It is not unpatriotic to advocate the wisdom in an AmericaFirst policy. NATO doesn’t secure or advance our country, but only provides the military command and enforcement that imposes the will of global masters. Resistance and opposition against an independent EU rapid defense force, comes not from the nations of Europe, but from the elites that control the mechanisms of global power. NATO is one of their tools. Alliances are one of their methods. And suppression of viable self determination is their cherished goal.

For old cold war diehards, longing for the next threat, look within NATO itself for the new enemy. The Balkans is not a triumph for NATO, but another example of a temporarily imposed armistice. We applaud France, Germany and Belgium – the three amigos – and smearing them the “Axis of Weasels”, only confirms our resolve. CIA veterans have warned the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq, saying that doing so would further widen the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and increase the incidence of terrorism. In a statement sent to media organizations earlier this week, the retired CIA officials also referred to an agency assessment report last fall, which, they said, opposed a military offensive against Iraq. They urged the Bush administration to “re-read” the CIA report that pointed out:

“The forces fueling hatred of the United States and fueling al Qaida recruiting are not being addressed” and that “the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist.”

Reflective citizens surely cannot conclude that invoking NATO’s mutual protection clauses, on behalf of Turkey, will provide greater security for America? The Brits see through the transparent Tony Blair, and nearly nine out of ten voters think the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to establish whether Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, as France, Germany and Russia have urged. Meanwhile, just a third think that Britain and America have so far put forward a convincing case for military action against Iraq. Let’s hope our blood relations will demand new elections!

The “einhoreh” evil eye consumes the Middle East. NATO won’t resolve that hatred, but its intrusive intervention can well escalate and broaden the spread of the blight. For those who believe that terrorism is confined or reserved only for Islamic’s, they better study the nature of the conflict.

The United States needs to establish an independent America First foreign policy that avoids all alliances and rejects internationalism. Disband NATO, trade with Europe and ignore the feud between Semite cousins.